It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Irreducible complexity and Evolution

page: 75
16
<< 72  73  74    76  77  78 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 02:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I believe that statement would hold it's weight just fine...




posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 02:23 AM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle
Belief is a wonderful thing.



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 02:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

So is knowing when you are right...
Pretty damn sure anyway...
Then again I'm only a 19 year old carpenter with a high school education that believes in God...

edit on 30-11-2017 by 5StarOracle because: Word



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 02:25 AM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle



Pretty damn sure anyway...

Blasphemer



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 02:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

That's not blasphemy...



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 02:27 AM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

Yuh huh, it is.



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 02:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

The usage there is not even cursing let alone blasphemy...



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 02:31 AM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

Your opinion is noted. As is your expertise in genetics.


edit on 11/30/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 02:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Id settle for interest over expertise...
Otherwise I can only assume you have resorted to belittling me again...



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 02:34 AM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

No. It's just that I had asked you to show your work.
Without that...it's opinion. Right?



edit on 11/30/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 02:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I'm not a geneticist...
Wanna see some pictures of churches hotels apartments houses?



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 02:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

You could say that...
You could say without absolute proof it is just faith...
That would be fitting for religion evolution intelligent design...
Alot of science is faith belief assumption...
But that's ok because that's what leads to what we all really want...
edit on 30-11-2017 by 5StarOracle because: Word



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 02:39 AM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

No. Not unless they have something to do with something having to do with biological evolution. Which, as you have said, is not ruled out by dogma.

Or did I get that wrong? Is evolution ruled out by dogma?



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 02:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Phage

The odds are not my work they are presented by others...
4^300


The calculation assumes that a single specific ribozyme must be synthesized for life to begin, but that’s not how it works. We make the plausible assumption that an enormous number of random polymers are synthesized, which are then subject to selection and evolution. This is the alternative hypothesis, and it is testable.

David Bartel and Jack Szostak, published a paper in Science in 1993. Their goal was to see if a completely random system of molecules could undergo selection in such a way that defined species of molecules emerged with specific properties. They began by synthesizing many trillions of different RNA molecules about 300 nucleotides long, but the nucleotides were all random nucleotide sequences. Nucleotides, by the way, are monomers of the nucleic acids DNA and RNA, just as amino acids are the monomers, or subunits, of proteins, and making random sequences is easy to do with modern methods of molecular biology.

They reasoned that buried in those trillions were a few catalytic RNA molecules called ribozymes that happened to catalyze a ligation reaction, in which one strand of RNA is linked to a second strand. The RNA strands to be ligated were attached to small beads on a column, then were exposed to the trillions of random sequences simply by flushing them through the column. This process could fish out any RNA molecules that happened to have even a weak ability to catalyze the reaction. They then amplified those molecules and put them back in for a second round, repeating the process for 10 rounds. By the way, this is the same basic logic that breeders use when they select for a property such as coat color in dogs.


After only 4 rounds of selection and amplification they began to see an increase in catalytic activity, and after 10 rounds the rate was 7 million times faster than the uncatalyzed rate. It was even possible to watch the RNA evolve. Nucleic acids can be separated and visualized by a technique called gel electrophoresis. The mixture is put in at the top of a gel held between two glass plates and a voltage is applied. Small molecules travel fastest through the gel, and larger molecules move more slowly, so they are separated. In this case, RNA molecules having a specific length produce a visible band in a gel. At the start of the reaction, nothing could be seen, because all the molecules are different. But with each cycle new bands appeared. Some came to dominate the reaction, while others went extinct.


Bartel and Szostak’s results have been repeated and extended by other researchers, and they demonstrate a fundamental principle of evolution at the molecular level. At the start of the experiment, every molecule of RNA was different from all the rest because they were assembled by a chance process. There were no species, just a mixture of trillions of different molecules. But then a selective hurdle was imposed, a ligation reaction that allowed only certain molecules to survive and reproduce enzymatically.

In a few generations groups of molecules began to emerge that displayed ever-increasing catalytic function. In other words, species of molecules appeared out of this random mixture in an evolutionary process that closely reflects the natural selection that Darwin outlined for populations of higher animals. These RNA molecules were defined by the sequence of bases in their structures, which caused them to fold into specific conformations that had catalytic properties. The sequences were in essence analogous to genes, because the information they contained was passed between generations during the amplification process.


The Bartel and Szostak experiment directly refutes the argument that the odds are stacked against an origin of life by natural processes. The inescapable conclusion is that genetic information can in fact emerge from random mixtures of polymers, as long as the populations contain large numbers of polymeric molecules with variable monomer sequences, and a way to select and amplify a specific property.

Arguing that the odds are too high for life to be possible without a creator/deity, is just an argument from incredulity and in no way does it falsify the hypothesis. It's putting a number down on a piece of paper, throwing your hands in the air and insisting it couldn't happen because...numbers/god.

That isn't how science works. We test our hypothesis and we record the results. Then we submit a paper based on those findings for others to review and look for errors. If it passes review and is published then even more people will try to replicate the experiment or attempt to falsify your data. I've yet to see a single proponent of young earth creationism, specifically Christians with that inclination, attempt to falsify a single paper on the subject. I see a lot of Gish Galloping, a lot of circular reasoning and even more ad hominem attacks.

But not once has anyone even attempted to falsify a paper. The closest was Cooperton who threw in the towel an hour after a link to the paper being posted. And that is a textbook example of intellectual dishonesty... insisting that your position is superior, everyone else is delusional but not once attempting to understand the other side of the argument let alone go so far as to attempt to falsify it. All while claiming they just want a civil discourse after they told me I was sending my children to hell by giving them the information presented by both sides, giving them access to material from both sides and letting them make up their own minds.

Apparently I'm only a good parent if I force my beliefs on children. But only if those beliefs are of the very specific version of Christianity of the dissenters denomination.



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 02:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

No I do not believe it is...
Take for example creation in the Bible...
Now like I have said before time in relation to the viewpoint of God is skewed...
It is written a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day to him...
So if we take into account then 7 days to God could be measured therefore as any amount of time to man...
Even billions of years...
In fact if you were to multiply the number of days from the prospective of the lineage of mankind in the Bible by 1000 and compared it to the estimated age of the Universe you may be quite surprised...
Anyway if you set aside the timeframe the rest of it fits with both creation and evolution on just what came before what...



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 02:46 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

That assumption is not testable because any attempt at recreation would be contaminated by the existence of life already...



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 02:49 AM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

Yes. It happened. Odds are irrelevant once an event occurs.

What are the odds that this would happen? Doesn't matter. It did.
www.huffingtonpost.com...

edit on 11/30/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 02:50 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

You wouldn't be a bad parent if you did not force your children to believe as you...
In fact belief can not be forced...
You could probably force them to pretend though if you really wanted...
They would probably just end up hating you and God for it in the end...
Everyone's relationship with God has to be personal...
You can persuade but anything else would be wrong...



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 02:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

They don't even begin to compare time wise and of course the lottery is not also dealing with those brick walls presented by genetics...



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 02:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: peter vlar

That assumption is not testable because any attempt at recreation would be contaminated by the existence of life already...


did you actually read what he just wrote there or just pass by it?








 
16
<< 72  73  74    76  77  78 >>

log in

join